Skip to main content

About your Search

20121128
20121206
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 199 (some duplicates have been removed)
increase noticing for exemptions. i think it's interesting to note that state c-e-q-a law does not require noticing for exemptions. however, in san francisco, the approval of many currently exempt projects are noticed. this proposal would augment our existing noticing procedures by requiring the notice for exemptions. and as i explained earlier, the notes would explain that you have the right to appeal a hearing from the project. it would provide postings of approval actions and inform the public on exactly how and when to file an appeal. the process is now in place is less clear to the public as it relies on many things. we have to look at board of the clerk procedures. there is a city attorney opinion letter. and every individual determination for an appeal if appropriate, is it timely, has to be reviewed by the city attorney for review by determination. important to the hpc in particular, the proposed procedures would change nothing about how historic resources are evaluated under see qualitiv so, there is some confusion as you heard about that. there would be -- the only change relativ
ordinance does and all the proposed ordinance does is fill gaps in state law. state law does not address -- state law was changed 10 years ago to allow an administrative appeal to the board -- to elected body if the elected body is the decision maker. we've had 10 years now of having no procedure in place. this is trying to establish a procedure. so, number one, it's addressing a gap in state law that did not establish procedures for such administrative appeals. secondly, it addresses a gap in state law specifically around exemptions regarding noticing. as ann marie stated, there is absolutely no requirement under state law for noticing exemptions. the noticing that we already have, either by ordinance or by practice goes way beyond anything that state law requires. what this does is aloe exceptionally try to address the fairness question in saying that since there is extensive noticing, it happens on many actions by the city, in particular extensive noticing by anything that this department does, that we want to maximize noticing through using existing noticing. in other words, if there
to have violated the law. here's one finding the rent board to have violated the law. here's another oneçhc san francisco police commission to have violated the p here's another one finding the police commission to have violated the law. here's one finding the library commission to have violated the law. here's a referral for enforcement to the ethics commission. here's another order finding( uñ louise herrera to have violated the here's the referral to the district attorney regarding that matter,úz%( +p here's a referral to the ethics commissioñcjsú regarding that meter. here's a referral to the city attorney regarding thatc ; office. here's another case findingtb city attorney'sd violation. here's another referral, and a directive to all city agencies and finally, the latest one another violation ofah%(ú library of the law maybe if this board of supervisors would quit whining about the task force and telling city agencies that the law requires them to obey the sunshine ordinance, and they(4 gwñ all
at an elective office, i think it's a public action. or it could translate into this. because state law says once you raise $1,000 or more, you effectively become a committee. >> you just have to function in public. >> well, i do feel like the way this reads right now, that if i collected $1,000 from five friends, which i was told to use to try to convince somebody to run for elective office, and i spent that money by taking them out to -- entertaining them for an evening, that this would not be covered. that would not be covered about i this. i don't know if we're intending to know about that kind of of activity nort. but i don't think we're intending to cover that. . >> in that situation you are not spending money to convince the voters. >> true. >> so i think leaving out the word "public" is okay. >> okay. any other comments from commissioners on decision point 1? public comment? >> david pillpa. i'm trying to kind of work through this language, including the top of page 2, lines 1-4. sorry, it's giving me a headache. i would suggest a few points. on line 17 and 18, i would reword it
of facts and conclusions of law. and so i was just wondering what was exactly contemplated by that? is that something written or just orally? when the vote is taken? it's sort of a companion question to commissioner renne's point and then i see later in section e, under "orders," it says, "the commission will instruct staff to prepare written order reflecting the commission's findings." so then i was wondering if what was contemplated was the findings of fact and conclusions of law to be incorporated in that order, which we would instruct, based on our vote and finding, verbally. or is there a more extensive process that is contemplated with respect to preparing findings of fact and conclusions of law? >> i think they just contemplated the commission doing it during the hearing. >> okay. >> that was my understanding as well and certainly if it was a complicated issue where we wanted to make written findings and that the summary order was more involved, i think we could do more. but i think the idea is that we can hopefully make them orally to get to resolution quickly. >> yes
there are some who have said that there are already laws in the books that cover this situation. that is simply not the case. which i whies berkeley, san joÉe and other california cities have their own public nudity restriction beyond the if there were already laws in place to address this situation, i would not have introduced this legislation. public nudity, currently, is not -- is legal in san francisco, other than in our parks, port, and in restaurants. there's been a suggestion that we should use lewd behavior laws, particularly the indecent exposure provisions of the california penal code. i don't agree with that. i think that using lewd behavior laws is problematic and ineffective. first of all, there are going to be a lot of borderline cases about whether something is lewd or not lewd and you're putting a police officer in a terrible position of trying to determine is this person a little bit aroused or not aroused, is that adornment on the person's genitals lewd or not lewd, did he shake his genitals a little too vigorously to draw attention. no police officer should make that determi
to make one more point. specific are there laws on the books that cover this situation? there aren't and which is why berkeley and san jose and other cities have their nudity restrictions above and beyond the penal code. if there were laws in place i wouldn't have addressed this legislation and subjected myself to some, shall we say interesting commentary among some of the opponents. and i include frankly the argument that i truly disagree with, and has been repeated over and over in some quarters, that saying that you have to cover your genitalos a public street or sidewalk is no different than requiring women to wear burkas or banning gay men or drag queenos the street. i disagree with that comparison and i think most people do. public nudity is currently legal in san francisco except for the parks and ports and restaurants and the suggestion that we should use the lewd behavior laws and the indecent exposure laws is problematic and ineffectual. it's unclear that cock rings and other behaviors that we see would qualify as lewd. i think it's border line as best and it's a ter
on anyone's substantive rights under c-e-q-a. in fact, we can't do that under state law as much as sometimes we'd like to amend state law, we can't. this provides for an improved more predictable and more timely process without affecting anyone's substantive c-e-q-a rights. commissioners, today i'm sure you would hear quite a bit of hyper boll i can rhetoric about how this legislation somehow undermines or guts * c-e-q-a and how the legislation will cause the sky to collapse into the earth. which is, of course, untrue. you will also hear hyperbole about how this legislation is some sort of nefarious developer scheme, which is also untrue, and ignores the fact that c-e-q-a appeals occur commonly for anything ranging from bike lanes to affordable housing projects to park projects, library projects, small family residential projects, and other projects that are anything but a developer scheme. indeed, larger developers have the resources and the savvy to be able to predict and to make their way through expensive and lengthy c-e-q-a processes, whereas an affordable housing provider, a family tr
is that of a business contracts mediator. i also on the board of law center to prevent gun violence. i have lived in san francisco most of my life and have raised my son here. thank you very much. >> and i am commissioner mazzucco. i'm a native san franciscan and my mother-in-law lives in the richmond district. i have raised my children in this city. my day job i an attorney, but for 19 years i was an assistant district attorney and also an assistant united states attorney. so i was in law enforcement for 19 years before going into private practice. and i played football at sacred heart high school with your lieutenant over in the corner. >> dr. joe marshall, and i am the co-founder and executive director of the omega boys club. >> hi there. my name is angela chang and i have been on the police commission for i believe two and a half year and i also want to thank captain ferrigno and roosevelt school for hosting us. i am often here in richmond and eating in the restaurants and excited to come here. i manage our council justice and work on language access issues, immigrant rights and also in the juve
, law enforcement, civil litigants and others about location information and other information about individuals. we need to have transparency about how often this information is being shared in order to have an informed dialogue with you, with the commission, with the public and our legislators about how to handle this information, and information about whether those requests are complied with. thank you very much. >> thank you, i think that's the strongest part of the resolution. supervisor mar. >> i want to thank the aclu for raising concerns about the privacy concerns. i am surprised about how much information from an app you can get. supervisor avalos and i were chatting a little bit, my 12-year-old using her clipper card quite a bit. i am curious whether she goes where she says she is but i understand the privacy concerns especially within the mta to be more transparent so i am really appreciative of the legislation and i'd like to ask if i could be added as a co-sponsor as well. >> great. it's important to say that the resolution references that it's really bart and the ma
under current law. but i think the commission agreed that the raising and spending of that size of money was not designed by the voters to be something that went unregulated. so the commission directed the staff to put together some provisions that would, as i said, regulate committed are designed to draft, particularly those that raise tangible sums of money. the reason for that is that a citywide campaign aimed at a single person still reaches people citywide, and would conceivably impact their decisions at the polling place based on the fact that you get someone to run for office by extolling their virtues. so these rectally simple to follow will treat under our law, such campaigns, such committees, excuse me, as primarily formed campaigns and therefore, report their activities to the voters. >> they are divided into two diction points. does the commissioners have any questions with regards to decision point 1? i have a question and it has to do with our definition of "support." i have some concern that it's maybe a little too restrictive, because i could imagine someone simply s
. this is filling a big gap in state law in terms of administering an appeals process and in terms of noticing. there is quite a bit of commentary which, i'll restrain from going too much into in term of where it's coming from, that suggests that somehow this proposal is being consistent with state law. it is restating state law in a couple instances. but since this is essentially gap-filling legislation, it is not going beyond or inconsistent with state law. * i think the issue that you are most likely to get confused about, whether by confusion of the speakers or by deliberate representation -- misrepresentations by the speakers, is this issue of substantial evidence. and without going into a long legal treatise, there's two ways in which the term substantial evidence is used in c-e-q-a. one is an evidencery standard. one is an appellate standard. * the way in which this is introduced in this legislation has to do with evidence and very simply, if you want to make a case for conclusion, whether you is the city or you is the appellant, you need to substantial evident to support it. that's all
under state law. there are a number of notice provisions that are in existing article and there are supplemental notices like posting on website that we do now. but basically whether you get that notice or whether you don't, you need to exercise your rights within six months. that's how c-e-q-a is structured. >> well, this i think is something that supervisor is trying to deal with and it's a little unrealistic. and it happens, i've heard of many instances where projects are approved. the project sponsor begins, has the contractor, is almost starting to do work sometimes. and, you know, during that period of time all of a sudden an appeal pops up and it has to be heard and nothing can be done any further until the appeal is done. i think that that window is too long. perhaps 20 days is too short. but i mean, i think that, you know, there is some appeal in the range of a month or something like that would be a realistic one in my mind that, you know, and also increasing noticing as you've spoken about, making notice as more universal as possible without necessarily send
? in other words, up to 40 years that we can't do to, is that right? >> the state law allows bonds to be levied by assessment districts and said that the districts can be expire before the bonds are repaid, but it doesn't exclusively say you can go out to 30 or 40 years, if needed. so we wanted to explicitly say in our enabling ordinance, if the district levies bond which is allowed under state law, those districts can have a term up to 40 years in order to replay that financing. so it could be interpreted right now under state law that you could do it, but we wanted to be more explicit and clear, so there won't be any potential challenges in the future. >> so is there something stopping a district from being in existence for 40 years right now? >> again, like i said, the state law is not clear on this and so we deposit want -- didn't want a challenge if we allowed up to 40 years and wanted to amend the local ordinance to allow us to do that. it's allowed, but it's not explicitly clear. >> it's a function of a gray area as opposed to direct effort to prevent local municipal
and ban that and our constitution is built on individual's rights and pursuit to happiness. many laws have been passed by the majority over years and ultimately based on bigotry and disgust and gay marriage and sodomy and many more. every time one of the laws is tested in court it has been eventually over turned. the same thing would happen here. it hurts no one. let's not pass it just because a few people find it disgusting. san francisco is about individual's rights and people come to the city to be who they are without concerns of bigging on tree and scorn. nudity is one more freedom that san francisco has championed. we took a step back with the towel law. let's not take another step backwards. i leave you with this quote from an rand. those that deny individual rights cannot be defenders for the majority. this legislation is using a sledge hammer to kill a flea. i urge you to vote no. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning. i am bruce dodea. as a child my father had a very racist sort of perspective on things. he felt that black people were bad people
, law enforcement will be called in to enforce the law that was just passed, and at jp$éó point, resources will be expended by our law enforcement agencies to enforce thatwjp law. i represent district 9. district 9 includes the neighborhood of the mission, which actually shares a police station with district 8, with the castro. mission station, mission police station, serves both the castro and the mission. and i]b@%Ñ can tell you that evy time that an incident happens in district 9, and unfortunately recently we have been talking about violent incidents and i call the captain and ask for more foot patrols and i ask for increasing the timeliness of the response, i ask for different strategies to deal with violent crime, the response repeatedly is i don't have the resources, i don't have the resources to do all the things that need to be done, i don't -- i think the captain is doing as much as anyone can possibly do, given the limited resources we have. but we do live in a time of limited resources. and when it comes to what is the best and most effective way of using those limi
conflict with state law and increase rather than reduce the city's exposure to c-e-q-a litigation and specifically i'm talking about confusing and unnecessarily complex processes for providing notice of c-e-q-a exemption determinations. under the proposed amendment, members of the public must submit written materials regarding an appeal to the board one full day before the city is required to give notice of the appeal. in other words, you have to give your written materials are due before member of the public are informed that an appeal is happening. the proposed amendments would deem valid prior c-e-q-a approval actions which could force project appellants to file lawsuits even before the board reaches decisions on their appeals in order to avoid c-e-q-a's strict statute of limitations. this could subject the city to additional and unnecessary expensive litigation. and finally, the proposed amendments would force members of the public to file two appeals and pay two appeal fees of $500 each in order to seek review proposed negative declarations before the board of supervisors. i
with existing law. there is no candidate. therefore, there is no campaign. and we have to identify what that is, because the entities don't exist in current law. >> sorry. if i may, is the intent to say that draft committees are subject to the same filing requirements is that the same intent? >> yes. >> i was going to suggest language like that. >> does it need to say "draft committees that are supporting an identifiable person?" >> no, because that is the definition of the draft committee. >> well, it is here. i think commissioner lui's suggestion makes sense draft committees shall file the same campaign finance-related filings reports or statements as for or required to be filed by a primarily formed committee. >> right. >> can i just suggest that we cut it -- we use the same language that we have, but on line 3, stop it after "city elective office?" >> yes. >> i like it. can someone read it again as proposed? >> draft committees shall file any campaign-related filings reports or statements required by either state or local law for a primarily formed committee supporting a candi
that need to be answered and looked at because i do think the law of unintended consequences is that people are concerned about. and i know that we're not going to resolve those issues here today. and i guess it's my advice to the supervisor would be really to spend some time looking at this issue around discretionary permits, the discretionary actions and appeals and triggers around that. and also around the window of appeals. and also notice. i actually don't like the reduction in notice for projects over 5 acres. we were talking about western soma earlier and the fact that the whole [speaker not understood] of the city being rezoned and people can be completely unaware that their properties, the nature of the zoning of their properties is changing that could be negative. i don't think is a good thing. * swath i actually think that provision is problematic in this legislation. i'm generally supportive of reform and i'd like to see some reform because we have booker t. washington, other cases we have that there has been c-e-q-a abuse and the challenge that you do have is not only that you
father-in-law is in chinatown sro, too. my father-in-law's building had this bed bug infestation. when he goes to bed, all the bed bugs come out at night. so he got bitten pretty badly all over the neck, the head. he reported to the manager. the manager just did a real routine thing about the bed bugs. so my father-in-law went to chinatown cdc for help. so that was brought to the attention of the health department. so he couldn't even sleep well at night. so we are really hopeful that the legislation will help people to understand how they are treated and get better. we are living in a pretty bad situation once you have bed bugs. so we hope that we could get this legislation done really fast, so things will get better for us. we thank the supervisors to put such an emphasis on improving the environment for us. thank you. >> thank you. i'm going to call up a couple more name cards. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon supervisors, thank you, my name is jorge potio, a lifetime resident of san francisco and i want to start by recognizing the hard work that has been put into the
it is not a category that one can file on currently. that's what this law does is make it a category that a person can come and file a petition about. so that is sort of circular logic and i wanted to correct that for the record. it is really important, in fact critical, that tenants have this administrative remedy for the issue of landlord harassment. tenants shouldn't be forced to only use the courts, especially low income tenants who don't have a lot of resources may also have language access issues and disabilities and other things that make it really challenging. the harassment issue is, in fact, a loophole. it is used as a tool to get around our very strong tenant protections that ensure that people are not evicted without cause, without just cause. harassment is, in fact, not a just cause. and so it should be amended to the rent ordinance so that essentially it is seen as another reason why it would be unlawful for a landlord to evict. that's simply what we're saying through doing this, is that a landlord cannot evict a tenant out of their home by a harassment and i am for one tired of see
that the seattle law is consistent with the first amendment. and, colleagues, i also want to mention that i'm still committed to finding policies that reduce yellow page blight and i'm working with the city attorney to hopefully draft new legislation to find alternate approaches to achieving the same goal. at this time, colleague, i hope you will be able to support this legislation in light of the 9th circuit. >> thank you. thank you, president chiu. supervisor wiener. >> i thank you and i want to thank president chiu for having pursued this legislation which i was happy to support and i was really saddened by the ninth slur circuit ruling. it seems that our federal courts more and more are fetishizing commercial and corporate speech. i fundamentally disagree with that. with that said, the current law is what it is and i will be reluctantly supporting this suspension and hope to revive legislation in the not too distant future. >> thank you. let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. so, r colleagues, there
respond to us via snail mail or email. we will make sure that we meet the minimum requirements of the law, which is two of the notifications must be mailed before service occurs, and then two of the notifications must be mailed after service has occurred within a 60 day boundary before and 60 day boundary after, so customers will know from us what we think their bill experience will be. customers who don't opt out after the first two notifications and get enrolled in the program see their first bill and decide they don't want to be part of the program will then receive again -- again they will receive an opt out notification and tell us no thank you at that point. they can call, let us know by various means that they want out, and throughout this time period we will be utilizing broadcast media, social media, broadcast media to make sure folks are aware. it's not just a quiet piece of mail that shows up at their home. it's going to be a full campaign here in the city, television, out door, advertising, newspaper, social media. our goal is really to reach as many people as possible thr
, there is a good question as to whether this is legal under california state law based upon 30 years of c-e-q-a history here. and finally, the changes are requiring an approval action before anyone can make a c-e-q-a appeal is ultimately going to inhibit the ability of community members to make contact with this board and with decision-makers about particular projects. and it does so in an ambiguous way. it's unclear what the first approval -- approval action is and who is going to be making that approval action. accordingly, these changes overall mean less informed discussion of environmental impacts and increase the probability that the board of supervisors will be forced to make a decision about a project that has been less carefully scrutinized and without the independent judgment of this planning commission. accordingly, we recommend a rejection to the board of supervisors. thank you. >> thank you. >>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is shannon gallagher, and i received notice of this hearing today and this issue being aired through the newspaper. when i read that i had singl
references to state law. >> president chiu: colleagues, roll call vote. >> clerk calvillo: on item 19, supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president chiu: the ordinance is passed on the first reading. item 20. >> clerk calvillo: a resolution declaring the intention of the board of supervisors to establish a business based improvement district to be known as the moscone expansion district and to levy a multi-year assessment on defined hotel businesses in the district. >> president chiu: colleagues, can we take this same house, same call? this resolution is adopted. next item. >> clerk calvillo: item 21, resolution approving the fourth amendment to the treasure island firefighting training center master lease between the treasure island development authority and the united states navy and extending the term. >> president chiu: same house, same call. t
to be watched. san francisco is only 47 square miles and we need the strongest c-e-q-a laws that could be in existence. we can't lower it to the state level. this is crucial. we live in a dense area and here people are just trying to cut back public debate, public opportunities for appeal. it's almost as though the lobbyists were allowed to write this. you heard some of the developers here -- one developer. you know, for them it's great. for the rest of us, terrible, unbelievable. supervisor peskin says he can't understand what the problem is. he says tens of thousands of c-e-q-a determinations are being made every year and only a couple dozens are appealed. that's a small price to pay to try to save our environment, our quality of life. it's far more important than developers or speculators getting their profits. thank you. >>> good afternoon. my name is genie kwok. the proposed changes to san francisco's c-e-q-a procedures have many problems such as incomprehensible appeals deadlines and a five-acre exemption [speaker not understood]. it is on a 20-acre campus. the focus of my talkin
law enforcement can be corrupt. so, they don't have the trust that's needed in order to report domestic violence and family violence. so, i'm very pleased today to report on a very strong and deep collaboration between our department, the district attorney's office, asian women shelter and casa of the women. we've been awarded a $650,000 grant over two years to really look at high-risk populations, limited english proficiency and/or lgbt groups. because we really see gaps in their ability to access the criminal justice system on domestic violence. and i'm going to ask tara to give you some details on how this extends and expands on existing work. >> great, thank you. so, there are four program components under this grant award. one is centralizing prosecution which builds off of the work of the limited english proficiency subunit within the district attorney's office, to prosecute perpetrators in cases where the victim is limited english proficient. this unit will serve as liaison for the identification of victim who are considered to be at high risk of [speaker not understood]
residents, and helping property owners to follow the law. and so this particular case of september 12 of this year, all the violations have been corrected and the building has been restored to a livable state for 48 families that reside on this property. so i want to take this time and acknowledge the members of our city family that actually make this happen. we can legislate law. we can talk about building code. but there are people that actually go out there and make that law reality for the residents here in san francisco. so i want to thank rosemary, james, james, david, and allen davidson. we want to recognize you today for your outstanding work protecting the basic living conditions of 48 san francisco families living at 245 leavenworth over the last three years. thank you for your leadership in abating 423 housing code+nc'p violations and restoring the building to a livable state for the residents. the board of supervisors extend its highest commendation and appreciation. thank you very much. >> supervisor, thank you very much for taking the time to thank the staff individuall
is commendable, but that the city share an impact required by state law with regard to c-e-q-a that has not been adequately presented. this is a question of cumulative development. all development occurring in the central city and around this project which the city lacks the mitigation resources and implementation to affect you with the full impact. i remind you, this is a city. we're between 80 and 90% of all residents and not the port to buy or represent in the city. this is a city-wide concern and it is an area concern. i haven't heard this addressed. >> thank you. >>> good afternoon, tim colin on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition and on behalf of our 70 something members. this project was presented to us earlier in the year and to make its a brief as possible, we loved it. it's right in our sweet spot. the urbanism, fantastic, on-site affordable housing. enormous amount of bicycle parking. it is a strong and welcome addition to this evolving neighborhood. i think the benefits of this project are so obvious and so overwhelming i'm not sure exactly why i'm here except i fear
't that -- i don't know what the state law says. but other people have claimed that that skirts the state law because the state law says a certification can be appealed to the legislative body. >> only if it's not -- if they're not the final decision making body on the c-e-q-a document. so, in this case they would be required to be the final decision making body. the fact that the planning commission would have done all the hard work getting through the document, getting the record all put together, making sure that it's in good shape before it gets to them doesn't mean that the board isn't the final decision making body. >> in those instances, wouldn't it be just easier for the board just to be the certifying body and to bypass the commission all together? >> i think they appreciate the work that you do here. >> well, i'm saying it just seems like -- then you're forcing the people who may be in the current system thinking of filing an appeal on a certification to then -- the process just changes to where instead of filing an actual appeal, they would prepare the same kind of document, let's
or administrative law judge where both the tenant and the landlord may appear and make oral presentations, including presentation of other witnesses. following such hearing the administrative law judge shall provide the board with a summary of evidence produced at the hearing. that's basically what would be added. i believe that just the passage of prop m which, again, was challenged in court and dismissed is an indication that residents in this city do feel that harassment is a real issue that many of them deal with regardless of whether the statistics, if one could read prop m and its passage is an ipld indication people need for protection around this issue. that's an indicator. that's where i'll leave it. colleagues, are there any -- supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the member s of the public who came out to give testimony as well as the leaders in the industry, given your perspective. this has actually been a very eye-opening experience listening to this. i too am a renter but as many of you know, i represent district 10 which is the baby portrero hill neighborhoo
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 199 (some duplicates have been removed)